More usenet usage statistics, by programming language

[Bengt Richter]

On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 03:21:59 +0100, Laura Creighton <lac at strakt.com> wrote:

>> >
>> Actually, I think a better measure might be counting distinct posters with a
>> minimum of two posts. This would indicate interest (e.g., dialog or more than
>> one question) more strongly than a single post, IWT. A table including both
>> would be interesting. I agree on time interval vs flat latest count also.
>> I guess you might expect spikes around significant announcements (good or bad
>> )
>> which could skew results from different languages.
>> 
>> Another interesting measure might be the aggregate volume of unquoted text vs
>>  total,
>> and those numbers divided by number of unique posters, for average level of i
>> nterest.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Bengt Richter
>
>If Bengt Richter spends all day answering questions on
>comp.lang.python, then other people, who would happily have posted if
>Bengt had been sick and couldn't answer, will remain silent because
>Bengt is doing a perfectly adequate job.  The faster Bengt types, the
>lower the volume.
>
>If we want to make the volume in this newsgroup go up, just post something
>that is _wrong_.  Or claim that vi is superior to emacs or vice-versa.
>Or ask people what their favourite <anything> is.  Or write a note
>claiming that Lisp is only used by fools and the mentally unstable and
>make sure that the readers of comp.lang.lisp hear about it. <wink>
>
LOL ;-)

Regards,
Bengt Richter